Political Geography as Political Ecology

POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY AS POLITICAL ECOLOGY Robert W . McColl University of California, Santa Barbara I N the modern trend toward increasing “scientism,” political geography, as other social sciences, has suffered from a lack of formalization and thus clarity as to its techniques and objectives. The present paper is an effort to fill this need. Its objective is only to clarify the nature of the relationship between political science and geography. No attempt is made to offer a formula for solving political geographic problems. What is described is merely a methodological device, a sort of mental coat rack, upon which data may be placed and evaluated in perspective to any problem as a whole. It is hoped that it will stimulate additional interest and discussion of the field.

It is generally agreed that political geography results from the overlap between political science and geography, “the study of political phenomena i n their areal context,” as Professor Jackson describes it. ( 1 ) The nature and extent of the political geographer’s concern in such a relationship, however, has been the subject of much debate. One aspect of this controversy centered on the German school of geopolitics. Concerned with the extent and nature of cause and effect relations, including geographic patterns of political activities, the debate reached a n apogee during and immediately following World W a r 11. Advocates of geopolitics who unduly stressed causal relationships between geography and politics were chastised both by geographers and political scientists. The after-effect of this often over-emotional debate was to place political geography and political geographers in disrepute. Recognizing the importance of geography and geographic relations in applied politics, yet often declining to discuss relevant implications for fear of the accusation of “geopoliticians” or “environmental determinists,” the result has been the creation of certain schizoid features in the field and among those who would attempt to define it, its objectives, and methodologies. Various solutions have been offered in the attempt to solve PRECEDENTS.

this situation. Generally, the primary consideration of such discussions has been t o avoid an over-emphasis of the purely geographic. Often the result has merely been to emphasize the role of politics and psychology and minimize the role of geography. Clearly, one emphasis cannot replace the other thereby bringing legitimacy t o political geography. Both extremes, and more importantly their combination and coordination, are necessary. If we are t o keep the politics and geography in political geography, then an approach which includes both and recognizes the extremes of each is necessary. Perhaps such an approach is best termed political ecology. POLlTiCAL A N D GEOGRAPHIC RELATIONS. The real problem in evaluating political geography and its attendant patterns lies not in the variable nature of geographic relations but in the shifting values and evaluations of their political significance. It is the shifting objectives of the policymaker which change the significance of geographic relationships. For example, the Himalaya Mountains may serve as an undisputed boundary between India and Tibet for years, with few or no political problems arising from their use. Let the political balance change, or the evaluation of this boundary zone shift in importance in the eyes of one nation or another, and suddenly the area becomes a focus of international strife and contention. It was not the geographic relations, either human or physical, which changed, but the objectives and evaluation of the political decision-maker. This then would seem to be the crux of the political geographer’s problem. Two basic elements contribute to the field, geography and politics. The easiest manner to deal with any political geographic problem would thus seem to be to evaluate it in terms of one element as it is modified by the other, e.g., the politics behind geography and the geography behind politics. Naturally each approach is limited t o its own criteria and must be extended to the other extreme if a true perspective is to be reached. Nevertheless, a starting point is

143

144 provided from which these components may be separated and their interaction analyzed and described.

THEGEOGRAPHY B E H I N DPOLITICS.In 1953 Professor Darby published his address “On the Relations of Geography and History.” (2) With only slight variation this methodological statement provides a frame within which the descriptive and analytic content of any geographic sub-field may more clearly be viewed. Its technique is simplicity itself. Adjectives are merely reversed. In the case of political geography this would result in the two categories, “geography behind politics” and “politics behind geography.” The “geography behind politics” approach would include not only physical or natural geographic elements but cultural patterns of location and distribution as well. The real conflict over geopolitics was its concentration on natural elements and the justification of national political goals in terms of physical geography. While such an approach and its abuse by politicians is lamentable, it does not invalidate the fact that geography has modified and does modify political actions. Quoting Michelet, (3) Darby makes the following point in his case for the “Geography Behind History”: “Without a geographical basis, the people, the makers of history, seem to he walking on air, as in those Chinese pictures where the ground is wanting. The soil too must not be looked on only as the scene of action. Its influence appears in a hundred ways such as food, climate etc. As the nest, so i,’the bird. AS the count&, so are the men.”

A similar observation regarding political science is made by the Sprouts: “Without knowledge both of man’s physical habitat, the earth, and his ever-changing adjustment and relationship to that habitat, there can be no real understanding of the rise and decline of nations of nationalisms and policies of the causes’ of international strife, or m&s repeated attempts to establish a more stable poIitical order upon the earth.” (4)

In addition to these general statements various political scientists have investigated geographic patterns as they relate to political action. Karl Deutsch has proposed eight uniformities in the growth of nations. ( 5 ) Among these, the first four deal with the importance of geography in the ability t o form pofitical units, Le.,

THE PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER shift from subsistence to exchange economy, creation of core areas of dense settfement and intensive exchange, growth of towns and social mobility between town and country, growth of basic communication grids, linking important rivers, towns and trade routes. While some might continue to rebel against the thought of the natural environment affecting political action, it would seem foolhardy t o oppose such an approach when it is taken t o include distribution patterns of a cultural as well as a physical nature. For example, can we deal effectively with problems of reapportionment without knowledge of existing population distribution and even physical barriers which separate one group and its functional organization from another? Likewise, when the political geographer approaches a largerscale problem such as the evaluation of the viability of a state, he cannot ignore the importance of its natural regions and geographic patterns which contribute to its centrifugal and centripetal forces. (6) One clearly could go o n to choose additional examples of how geography and geographic patterns have modified political decisions and action. It serves no purpose in a paper of this nature, however, as those who oppose the approach would find n o suasion, while those more openminded will see its value for both descriptive as well as analytic work. Certainly it is not the contention of the author that this is the only approach. Equally valid, and important as a continued balance to a single-factor analysis is the other extreme, Le., the “politics behind geography.’’

POLITICSBEHINDGEOGRAPHY. As the converse of the “geography behind politics,” “politics behind geography” is often more easily recognized. It is certainly the “safer” t o study. A small-scale example of how politics might influence geographic patterns would be the process of gerrymandering. This is clearly a case i n which politics influences the political division of a state or county. NATO, SEATO, ANZUS, and similar regional defense pacts unite states having no contiguous boundaries or any other physical basis of regional homoge-

VOL.XVIII, NUMBER 3, MAY,1966

145

neity. They would thus represent largescale examples of politics influencing the political organization of space. The distinction between the two approaches is merely the point from which description or analysis is initiated. They are in fact two sides of the same coin. One is the natural complement of the other. While the above are cited as examples of the politics behind geography, they might also be described or analyzed from the standpoint of the geography behind politics. Gerrymandering would be neither necessary nor possible unless certain voter patterns already existed. Likewise, regional defense pacts such as NATO and SEAT0 are responses to the geographic concentration of an “enemy.” As their existence rests upon such a concentration, they also might be considered a political response to geography. The choice of approach is up to the user and his objectives.

such a political unit, say its boundary or core area, the parameters are then greatly reduced. Such a study is still ecologic, however, if the variables of politics and geographic reality are both dealt with. Only the necessity of organization and a starting point determines which element is emphasized. Any single element remains merely that, one aspect of the whole. Such cross-sections, of course, may be studied exhaustively and in a cross-regional (systematic) manner.

VALUE.The value of this approach lies primarily in its ability to provide clear-cut, easily explained and understood starting points for description or analysis. Not only is this helpful in preparing one’s own study, but also in explaining the findings to others. Secondly, it aids in keeping a proper perspective on the major variables, geography and politics, while emphasizing their basic oneness. It is not limited in approach, as either dynamic (functional) or descriptive (morphologic ) approaches are possible. In addition, virtually all previous theoretical and systematic statements on political geography fit into its general framework. In conclusion, I would like again to point out that this is not an attempt at presenting a “formula” for the solution of political geographic problems. I have merely attempted to present an approach which combines the various systematic statements already in existence in a matrix designed to facilitate more holistic analysis, description and explanation, and to encourage more work in the geographic aspect of politics-the geographer’s major forte.

AN ECOLOGZCMODEL. As ecology by definition deals with the interrelatedness and interdependence of two or more variables, political geography to be political ecology must emphasize the description, analysis, and evaluation of the interrelation between geography and politics. In such investigations individual problems determine which emphasis is the more valid and what additional elements must be included in the study. If the problem under consideration should involve an entire state or political unit, then the relevant aspects of its cultural as well as natural elements must be investigated in such a manner that a total picture is presented. Should, however, the investigation deal with only one aspect of

* W. A. Douglas Jackson, Politics and Geografihic Relationships, PrenticeHall, New Jersey, 1964, p. 1. H. C. Darby, “On the Relations of Geography and History,” Transactions and Pafiers, The Institute of British Geographers, 1953, No* ‘9. Jules Michelet, Histoire de France, preface to the edition of 1869. Harold and Margaret Sprout, eds., Fozmdations of National Power, D.

*

* Van Nostrand, New York, 1951, p. 79. (5) Karl Deutsch, “The Growth of Nations: Some Recurrent Patterns of Political and Social Integration,” World Politics, Vol. V, January, 1953, pp. 168-195. (6) See Richard Hartshorne, “The Functional Approach in Political Geography,” Alznals, AAG, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1950, pp. 95-130 for an elaboration on centrifugal and centripetal forces.